Tags
American history, biographies, book reviews, DOuglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, presidential biographies, Pulitzer Prize, Richard Harwell, US Presidents
Richard Harwell’s abridgment of Douglas Southall Freeman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 7-volume series on George Washington was published in 1968, fifteen years after Freeman’s death and eleven years after the series was completed by two of Freeman’s associates. Harwell was a librarian and historian who also abridged Freeman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 4-volume series on Robert E. Lee. Harwell died in 1988 at the age of 72.
Freeman’s original series on Washington was published between 1948 and 1957. Comprising seven volumes and about 3,600 pages, this is the most ambitious study of Washington that has been undertaken and compares to Dumas Malone’s series on Thomas Jefferson (1948-1981), Ray Stannard Baker’s series on Woodrow Wilson (1927-1939) and Robert Caro’s ongoing series of Lyndon Johnson (1982-). Given the length of Freeman’s series and the difficulty in obtaining each of the volumes, Harwell’s abridgment is the default choice for most readers seeking access to Freeman’s magisterial work.
While beginning this 754-page abridgment I also read much of the first volume of the series in order to understand the magnitude of Harwell’s task and measure his success. Immediately obvious is that while the first volume alone includes helpful chapter titles, numerous maps and illustrations and nearly 2,700 footnotes, Harwell’s abridgment contains no titles, no footnotes, no bibliography and proportionately fewer maps and illustrations. To his credit, however, Harwell’s narrative does seem to retain much of Freeman’s literary voice.
The paperback version of Richard Harwell’s abridgment I read contains an interesting Introduction by Michael Kammen as well as an insightful Editor’s Note by Harwell. The first volume of the underlying series, however, contains an even more compelling and lengthy introductory note by Freeman himself.
There is much to be admired about Harwell’s effort to economize Freeman’s series though some of the abridgment’s strengths undoubtedly reflect merits retained from the original volumes. But evaluating an abridgment is not the same as appraising the work from which it stems. And readers of this condensation will undoubtedly uncover many of the same flaws (whether unique to Harwell or carried over from the series) which I observed.
While this biography is an excellent review of Washington’s life and times – of events which happened in his immediate vicinity – it is not particularly useful in understanding the broader context of the era, the social scene or even Washington himself. Very little in these 25 chapters will provide the reader insight into his family life, much less his inner-self or his way of perceiving the world. The stone-faced hero remains enigmatic to the very end.
The facts-only style of the original series has been rigidly preserved as well, leaving the casual reader at extraordinary risk of becoming lost in a blizzard of detail within a narrative that generally lacks foreshadowing (in advance of important stretches) or concluding thoughts (to underscore salient points). Critical characters are rarely well-introduced and remain two-dimensional shadows; readers familiar with Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson will be hard pressed to find their vibrant personalities here.
The writing style is often clever and articulate, but also feels dated, stiff and dense with very little vibrancy or color. The biography’s best moments (such as Washington’s early months as Commander of the Continental Army or the crossing of the Delaware River and ensuing Battle of Trenton) are very good. But, more often than not, the narrative possesses the charm of a tax audit. Finally, serious history enthusiasts will find the lack of notes and bibliography unacceptable.
Overall, Richard Harwell’s abridgment provides its audience with a seemingly faithful and remarkably efficient summary of Douglas Southall Freeman’s groundbreaking series on George Washington. Harwell’s condensation is both impressive in aim and admirable in outcome. But it is of little use to the serious historian/scholar and most readers will find it disappointing compared to the very best biographies of George Washington.
Overall rating: 3 stars
My Journey Through the Best Presidential Biographies 
I read the whole 7 volumes a few years ago, when it was TRULY hard to find them because the internet was nothing like it is now. Today, each of those volumes is easy to find (I use bookfinder.com, which is very good for finding first editions and out-of-print books.) They may not be cheap if you’re after pure first editions in fine condition, but there are choices and anyone who wants to can find each of the volumes.
I am not surprised by the review of the condensed version. I admire the effort by the author because it was an attempt to make the excellence of the source-work more approachable and accessible to a general audience, but as the review indicates, a lot of “soul” and development must have been left out. And Freeman’s writing was art in itself.
I have read many, many presidential biographies and works of American History, but I have yet come across a work as engrossing and magisterial as the 7 volumes by Freeman (and his associates.) Although I hardly ever read anything twice, this work might be an exception in a few years. So I hope Steve’s review of the abridgment nudges a handful of people to tackle the original work.
I do agree with Steve in that, if reading all seven volumes is not possible for someone, the Chernow single-volume biography of Washington is about as good a modern biography on any president as will be found out there.
Like Rafael, I located and attempted to read all seven volumes of Freeman’s epic about 20 years ago. I made it through about 4 1/2 volumes, but was likewise engrossed. Freeman wrote his biographies and histories from the point of view of his subjects — intentionally not giving you the reader much if any more information than they had at the time. This allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the profiled person’s motivations and actions. While this may seem like a foreign approach compared to more modern biographies, in many ways it makes a giant figure like Washington much more human, in that you’re provided with less hindsight and more “real time” detail. Freeman reports; you decide.
As it happens, I just finished reading the unabridged version of Freeman’s Washington. I had previously read Flexner’s 4-volume biography, which left me wanting to learn even more about the first president.
Freeman’s work is so detailed and moves at such a deliberate pace (at least up to the end of the Revolution) that at times I found myself a little frustrated that the events I knew were approaching couldn’t hurry up and happen already. But that’s the price you pay to get as much information as you can about what Washington was doing during almost all periods of his life.
Having read Freeman, I feel that I know a great deal more ABOUT Washington, but Flexner gave me more of a sense that I UNDERSTOOD Washington. One final note — because Freeman tended to maintain a tone of scholarly detachment, it’s easy to overlook what a careful stylist he was. He was a talented writer whose work repays close attention, if one can spare the time.
Everything you said rings true for the portion of Freeman’s 1st volume which I probably read 1/3 of in order to draw comparisons between it and the early portion of the abridgement. Although I wasn’t in love with the writing style from an “entertainment” perspective, he was a real literary connoisseur and a meticulous historian from what I could tell.
Thank you so much for this insight. I have been trying to decide between the Flexner and Freeman works, as I doubt I will be able to read both.
For what it is worth, David McCullough praises Freeman but fails to even mention Flexnor in 1776.
Oh, yes I noticed that… thanks for reminding me as I decide which works to attempt.
I agree with your assessment of the abridgement of Freeman’s work. A lot of info, but it’s a stiff, dense, facts-only account of events that doesn’t really give much insight into the person. I may know what decisions he chose during the American Revolution, and I can tell you what he was, but after all of that work, I’m not so sure that I can even tell you who he was….